I read where a lot of railroads, when they saw that passenger business was in decline, opted to buy F7’s instead of E7’s, to use for passenger trains. That way, the F7’s could be diverted to freight service in the end. If that’s so, why did they bother to buy E7’s at all?
Murph,
I think you have data/info mixed up. The E7 was produced from 1945 up through 1949. The F7 was produced from 1949 through 1954. The E7 was a dedicated ‘passenger’ engine. Most F7’s were sold for mainline freight service, although several Western roads like to use them as passenger engines due to mountain grades.
By 1954, most locomotive purchasing was freight and the hood type units were what was being purchased. Some dedicated passenger engines were still built through about 1961(EMD E9’s). Some roads(N&W) came late to dieselization and bought boiler equipped GP9’s for passenger service. By the mid 60’s, any passenger engine needs were handled by existing power or boiler equipped SDP35/SDP40/SDP45 engines(that could be moved to freight service).
Jim
Additionally, this is not to say that the E’s could not be used for freight. Several railroads – Erie Lackawanna, to name one (others have been discussed on the forum previously) – used E’s for freight service after their passenger-hauling days were over.
Meanwhile, EMD sold late-model F-units that were specifically intended for passenger duty, namely the FP7 and FP9, with the “P” signifying passenger. The frames were 4’ longer IIRC, allowing for more space for the boiler and water tank.
Finally, agree with Jim that most 1960’s passenger duty-capable locos were the hood units mentioned, but I’d also like to note that EMD delivered cowled FP45 units to the Santa Fe and Milwaukee Road; both of which used them for freight duty after their more prestigious days of Super Chief and Hiawatha service were done.
The “problem” if you will with E-units was that unlike SD’s where all three axles in a truck are powered, the center truck on an E unit was an unpowered idler. So whereas an SD-9 is a “C-C” set up, an E-9 is an “A1A-A1A” arrangement. This was great for high speed flatland running, but caused problems when railroads tried to use them in the mountains (like Great Northern in Montana). F units had all axles powered and were able to haul the trains over the grades and still run very fast on flatland trackage.
The “streamline” or “lightweight” passenger car, the use of scare quotes because the were not that light and only somewhat streamlined, essentially the Amtrak Heritage Fleet: the AAR roof profile, two-axle swing-motion, pedestal journal guide trucks, air conditioned with non-opening windows, along with the matching cab-type locomotive is essentially a product of the 1930s, the 1941-45 WW-II years putting a lot of the streamline-Diesel transition on hold, with what I see has a mass Dieselization and adoption of the lightweight passenger car post war into the early 1950s. The dates and production quantities in the various Diesel Spotter’s Guides are a good resource on when this all happened.
The E-7 was the biggie as far as post WW-II passenger Dieselization, followed by the E-8 for roads wanting more HP per unit and passenger-geared F-7 for mountain roads needing more weight on drivers. The big purchases of these locomotives and passenger cars must have been in the 1945-1952 time frame.
What happened is that while the railroads were swamped with passenger and other traffic during WW-II owing to troop movements and gas and airline flight rationing, and while the railroads sunk a lot of money replacing their passenger fleet with Diesels and lightweight streamline passenger cars after WW-II, the travelling public deserted the rails and left the railroads holding the bag. A lot of this happened or started happening before a lot of the Interstate even got into high gear or before the development of the DC-9 and B-727 jets for domestic service.
By the early to mid 1950s, the pickle that passenger service was in became apparent, and the acquisition of passenger equipment and motive power essentially came to a halt. There were the odd exceptions – the Sante Fe High Level fleet was acquired, what, late 1950s? C&NW acquired long-distance versions of their commuter bilevels in the same time frame.
The “lightweight experimentals” -
Southern RR by 1954 (end of steam operations) was still short of passenger diesels and was using some E-6,7.8.9s ,FP7s, GP-7s, PA-4s, and some Alcoa rs-?+ some F-7s and Heater Cars attached to freight units to fill in when passenger units failed. In two years; train offs and reduction of consists allowed all of the oddballs to be retired or turned to freight service and Es were used almost exclusively except maybe Ashville, NC trains.
You’re correct, in my haste I picked E7 and F7 thinking of them as contemporaries. I think it was the F7’s and GP7’s that were built about the same time. I just didn’t understand why a railroad wouldn’t buy the more universal F’s over the E’s?
The B&M wanted to dieselize, but during WWII only freight locomotives could be built, with fuew exceptions. So it got FT’s, then a few interim F2’s, and then F3’s. None built with boilers. But the B&M did put boilers in some FT B-units (where there was room) and used them in instensive passenger service where diesel fuel was already available because of an existing diesel switcher fleet. They had considerable experience with F-Type EMD products during WWII. Still, when passenger locomotive production was restored, they did buy a few E-units, several E-7’s over the yeas, with the last delivered as the single E-8, and these were assigned only to Boston - Portland, with a few running through over the Maine Central to Bangor, a very flat route where one E could handle up to 12 cars, and for running opposite the Canadian Pacific’s E units (only two) on the relatively short consist Alouette and Red Wing, day and night Boston - Montreal. Nearly all other passenger assignments were handled by the boiler-equipped F’s, and then the Alco and GP-7 road-switchers, also boiler equpped. GP-7’s 1567 or 1568, in autumn 1952 and in 1953 regularly handled the 4pm Boston - Portsmouth local and returned handling a frieght with one set-out an pick-up. Budd RDC’s and train-offs ended all of this, exept the freight.
The GP7 and F7 were contemporaries. The E7 was replaced by the E8 and then E9 models. As mentioned most regular road units could be equipped to pull passenger trains. Over here on NJTransit we have the original GP40p units (rebuilt somewhat) running in regular service everyday. Then of course there were the U34CH engines which were built for both services for EL, though use on freight was scarce I believe. I would guess the SDP40f was EMD’s first venture back into actual passenger units after the original E units. Of course, as we all know, it didn’t end too well there.
Not to ask the stupid question, but I know nothing about passenger stuff.
Why was a boiler/water tank needed?
To put it simply, when steam was king passenger trains were heated by steam from the locomotive, when diesels came along rather than change entire passenger fleets to another form of heating they just added steam to the diesels. In some cases where there were no steam equipped diesels available steam vans were used, basically a car with a steam generator (diesel boiler) coupled behind the locomotive(s).
Steam was sometimes used by the dining car for cooking / heating. Some passenger cars even used steam air conditioning!!
ATSF was a major user of steam ejector air conditioning in its streamlined equipment, I’m not sure about other roads.
In case people are wondering how hot steam can make cool air conditioned air, a steam ejector is simply a nozzle that uses a jet of steam to pull a draft. The good ol’ steam locomotive uses a steam ejector from the cylinder exhaust to pull a draft through the flues and firebox. Why even the United Aircraft TurboTrain used a turbine exhaust ejector – those fat stacks out the top of the Dome Car – to ventilate the engine and accessory compartment without requiring fans.
In steam ejector air conditioning, the steam ejector nozzle pulls a vacuum so that water can boil at a vacuum, and water boiling at a vacuum provides the chill. Like the steam locomotive, the steam ejector air conditioner may not be particularly thermally efficient, but it is a simple and elegant solution when you have a lot of steam.
Closed-cycle refrigeration using ammonia as a working fluid is common in commercial refrigeration; someone could weigh in on whether steam ejectors are used for chilled water supply for airconditioning using district HVAC systems. I suspect they are because the central steam plant where I work at the U also provides chilled water for summer AC, but I never got to take the tour of that plant I had organized for some Korean visitors because they wanted to see a power generation plant and not a district heating plant.
Steam lines on passenger trains have gotten a bad rap or rep, and the between-car steam connection may be problematic, Diesel generator HEP sets may be more reliable than steam boilers, and steam has distribution problems above a certain train length. But steam heat must be more energy efficient than electric heat off an HEP genset, and steam heat is widely used to this day in district heating – where I work, we don’t run a Diesel genset in a neighboring building to feed resistance grid baseboards in a classroom.
Steam ejector AC was particularly problematic in the early Amtrak days when they mixed and matched Heritage Fleet equipment around
Not all railroads had e units either. ATSF and GN come to mind and there was a reason for that. E units were designed to replace 4-4-2 and 4-6-2 steam engines which were (for the most part) speed engines rather than tonnage engines. E units could not handle long sustained grades very well at all. F units were much better since all the weight was on the drivers. The only railroad that had a fleet of E units that had a serious grade was the PRR and that was up horseshoe curve out of Altoona for seven miles. Since helpers were on every train any way that was not a problem. The six wheel truck for the E unit gave a phenomenal ride but they were for flat land running not pulling grades.
ATSF and GN each had small fleets of E’s. E1’s were the power for the first streamlined Super Chief, and ATSF also had a handful of E3’s and E6’s. The E1’s were later rebuilt into E8’s. On ATSF, the various E’s were overwhelmed in numbers by passenger F’s and Alco PA’s.
On GN, the first streamlined Empire Builder had E7A’s assigned, they were later bumped to secondary trains out of the Twin Cities.
The choice was basically between a 2000 HP locomotive and a 1500 HP locomotive. Both had 4 powered axles and with similar gearing, each could take the same tonnage up a specified grade. (The F’s had somewhat higher #/axle, making them a bit more capable on grades, perhaps) So the choice comes down to the application and use. How much HP per ton do you need for the schedule you want to keep and how many units of each, at what cost to buy and maintain, would it take? Lowest $$ wins!
Another point is that the F-units weren’t good at speeds above 80 mph, too much truck hunting. The E-units with the long wheelbase performed better.
Not sure truck hunting was much of an issue before welded rail…
ATSF used to run F-units in the triple digits. Maybe their track was better. They also had no problems with SDP40Fs, even buying some after they were banned from other lines.